The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It

[Sculptor]

WTF, I have already defined 'what is real' here;

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

If you don't agree that scientific facts are real facts as I had claimed, then you define 'what are real facts' to you?

What is a scientific fact?

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

A "working definition of a fact" is off topic from the OP.

As such, here are:
what is a fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

[Agent Smith]

That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

[Iwannaplato]

That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Where's the energy come from to make my bathroom 8 times a day?

[Agent Smith]

That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Where's the energy come from to make my bathroom 8 times a day?

Non sequitur mon ami!

[Iwannaplato]

That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Where's the energy come from to make my bathroom 8 times a day?

Non sequitur mon ami!

Well, my bathroom goes out of existence when I leave it. I took an average of pee, poop, showering, toothbrushing and so on. Figure my bathroom's getting brought into existence at least 8 times. I mean, think about how much work it would take for you to build a bathroom. Where's that energy coming from?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.


What is a scientific fact?

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

A "working definition of a fact" is off topic from the OP.

As such, here are:
what is a fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

Where did I ever say it is "so easy and straightforward" note;

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

thus a detailed explanation is needed [off topic here] to justify which sense of fact is most realistic.

I have already insisted 'scientific facts' as conditioned upon the science-FSK is the most objective, thus most realistic.
If you cannot agree nor understand, read the two links I posted above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Note sure if you meant to say you agree with the OP or not?

Here is a clue, i.e. pointing toward the OP but not exactly.

Are you familiar with the 3D-Mask Illusion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs



Reflect on this;
You see only 3-D convex Mask when the mask is fully rotated 365 degrees; but you know full well that as a matter of fact, there is the convex and concave side of the mask.
So, there is a 3D-Mask ONLY when you set your eyes [cognitive functions] upon the hollow-side of the mask.
No matter how hard you [and all normal human beings] try, you will always cognize an emerging 3-D convex shape face when even you know it is actually concave [sunk-in].
In this case you are experiencing an illusion.

Similarly it is the same with the moon; you cognized [which is more complex than 'look'] a "moon" only when you direct your eyes and cognitive functions in whatever-that-thing in the sky.

In one perspective, we may explain that the moon that is cognized is an illusion, what is real is merely a cluster of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy.

But "clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are still human cognition [not direct], what is more real is must be things beyond quark particles or waves, or energy.
As such clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are relatively illusions.

Whatever is a thing, there is always something beyond it and leading to an infinite regress as postulated by humans.

In the above perspective,
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
Note 'look' in '...' imply it is a more complex process than ordinary looking.

A link related to the above,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35493

[Agent Smith]

Where's the energy come from to make my bathroom 8 times a day?

Non sequitur mon ami!

Well, my bathroom goes out of existence when I leave it. I took an average of pee, poop, showering, toothbrushing and so on. Figure my bathroom's getting brought into existence at least 8 times. I mean, think about how much work it would take for you to build a bathroom. Where's that energy coming from?

Give me a good reason why the moon should exist while we're not looking at it? There are ways things can go wrong with energy other than just not being able to show where it comes from in me humble opinion.

[Agent Smith]

That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Note sure if you meant to say you agree with the OP or not?

Here is a clue, i.e. pointing toward the OP but not exactly.

Are you familiar with the 3D-Mask Illusion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs



Reflect on this;
You see only 3-D convex Mask when the mask is fully rotated 365 degrees; but you know full well that as a matter of fact, there is the convex and concave side of the mask.
So, there is a 3D-Mask ONLY when you set your eyes [cognitive functions] upon the hollow-side of the mask.
No matter how hard you [and all normal human beings] try, you will always cognize an emerging 3-D convex shape face when even you know it is actually concave [sunk-in].
In this case you are experiencing an illusion.

Similarly it is the same with the moon; you cognized [which is more complex than 'look'] a "moon" only when you direct your eyes and cognitive functions in whatever-that-thing in the sky.

In one perspective, we may explain that the moon that is cognized is an illusion, what is real is merely a cluster of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy.

But "clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are still human cognition [not direct], what is more real is must be things beyond quark particles or waves, or energy.
As such clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are relatively illusions.

Whatever is a thing, there is always something beyond it and leading to an infinite regress as postulated by humans.

In the above perspective,
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
Note 'look' in '...' imply it is a more complex process than ordinary looking.

A link related to the above,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35493

How very fascinating. The 3D mask illusion is most apropos. How do we know elephants exist and dragons don't?

[Iwannaplato]

Give me a good reason why the moon should exist while we're not looking at it?

Well, parsimony. 1) Ontological simplicity 1 - I seem to persist through time. Why would it be different with other things? Objects winking in and out of existence, but subjects not doing this. Complicated. Parsimony leads to accepting the simpler ontological model unless there is a good reason not to do this. 2) Ontological simplicity 2 - Everyone I know keeps finding things where they last were - with the non-mobile things. The model - things continue to exist when not being experienced fits our experience well. The model that they are winkinig in and out is more complicated. We don't experience this. It doesn't explain something we experience. Parsimony - the simpler model works, unless we get strong evidence there is some more complicated process. 3) Practicality - Object Permanence - https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-ob ... ce-2795405
works really well. It is also a natural PIagetian stage. What's a good reason to give this model up?

There are ways things can go wrong with energy other than just not being able to show where it comes from in me humble opinion.

For example. I didn't really understand this.

[Agent Smith]

Give me a good reason why the moon should exist while we're not looking at it?

Well, parsimony. 1) Ontological simplicity 1 - I seem to persist through time. Why would it be different with other things? Objects winking in and out of existence, but subjects not doing this. Complicated. Parsimony leads to accepting the simpler ontological model unless there is a good reason not to do this. 2) Ontological simplicity 2 - Everyone I know keeps finding things where they last were - with the non-mobile things. The model - things continue to exist when not being experienced fits our experience well. The model that they are winkinig in and out is more complicated. We don't experience this. It doesn't explain something we experience. Parsimony - the simpler model works, unless we get strong evidence there is some more complicated process. 3) Practicality - Object Permanence - https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-ob ... ce-2795405
works really well. It is also a natural PIagetian stage. What's a good reason to give this model up?

There are ways things can go wrong with energy other than just not being able to show where it comes from in me humble opinion.

For example. I didn't really understand this.

One must examine the criteria for existence.

[Iwannaplato]

Give me a good reason why the moon should exist while we're not looking at it?

Well, parsimony. 1) Ontological simplicity 1 - I seem to persist through time. Why would it be different with other things? Objects winking in and out of existence, but subjects not doing this. Complicated. Parsimony leads to accepting the simpler ontological model unless there is a good reason not to do this. 2) Ontological simplicity 2 - Everyone I know keeps finding things where they last were - with the non-mobile things. The model - things continue to exist when not being experienced fits our experience well. The model that they are winkinig in and out is more complicated. We don't experience this. It doesn't explain something we experience. Parsimony - the simpler model works, unless we get strong evidence there is some more complicated process. 3) Practicality - Object Permanence - https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-ob ... ce-2795405
works really well. It is also a natural PIagetian stage. What's a good reason to give this model up?

There are ways things can go wrong with energy other than just not being able to show where it comes from in me humble opinion.

For example. I didn't really understand this.

One must examine the criteria for existence.

Yo, I put a little work in there. Do you really think your response is clear and a response to any points I made? I mean, your own sense. I'll leave the assessment to you.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Note sure if you meant to say you agree with the OP or not?

Here is a clue, i.e. pointing toward the OP but not exactly.

Are you familiar with the 3D-Mask Illusion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs



Reflect on this;
You see only 3-D convex Mask when the mask is fully rotated 365 degrees; but you know full well that as a matter of fact, there is the convex and concave side of the mask.
So, there is a 3D-Mask ONLY when you set your eyes [cognitive functions] upon the hollow-side of the mask.
No matter how hard you [and all normal human beings] try, you will always cognize an emerging 3-D convex shape face when even you know it is actually concave [sunk-in].
In this case you are experiencing an illusion.

Similarly it is the same with the moon; you cognized [which is more complex than 'look'] a "moon" only when you direct your eyes and cognitive functions in whatever-that-thing in the sky.

In one perspective, we may explain that the moon that is cognized is an illusion, what is real is merely a cluster of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy.

But "clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are still human cognition [not direct], what is more real is must be things beyond quark particles or waves, or energy.
As such clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are relatively illusions.

Whatever is a thing, there is always something beyond it and leading to an infinite regress as postulated by humans.

In the above perspective,
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
Note 'look' in '...' imply it is a more complex process than ordinary looking.

A link related to the above,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35493

How very fascinating. The 3D mask illusion is most apropos. How do we know elephants exist and dragons don't?

Existence is not a predicate.
As such one cannot claim "X exists" by itself without the explicit or implicit predicate.
As such whatever exists & is real must be predicated or conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality[FSR].
As such whatever exists is scientific real is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

At present the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable thus the most realistic and objective on a conditional basis [not absolutely]; the scientific FSK is the standard to evaluate the objectivity of all other FSKs.

As such, when one claims 'elephants exist' we must establish the claim is based on what FSK. If that is claim upon the science-biology-FSK then we can a high confidence level that it is true. see,
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

If someone claim dragons exist, we have to establish what FSK is he relying upon. If it is a Harry Potter FSK, we know it is fiction and dragons don't exists as real in the scientific basis.
If someone insists dragons exist as real, then they have to subject their existence of dragons via the scientific FSK to achieve credibility and reliability for their claims.

[Skepdick]

Existence is not a predicate.

It can be.

The existence of beer in my fridge is either true or false.

As such one cannot claim "X exists" by itself without the explicit or implicit predicate.

Bullshit.

I exist.

[Agent Smith]

Note sure if you meant to say you agree with the OP or not?

Here is a clue, i.e. pointing toward the OP but not exactly.

Are you familiar with the 3D-Mask Illusion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs



Reflect on this;
You see only 3-D convex Mask when the mask is fully rotated 365 degrees; but you know full well that as a matter of fact, there is the convex and concave side of the mask.
So, there is a 3D-Mask ONLY when you set your eyes [cognitive functions] upon the hollow-side of the mask.
No matter how hard you [and all normal human beings] try, you will always cognize an emerging 3-D convex shape face when even you know it is actually concave [sunk-in].
In this case you are experiencing an illusion.

Similarly it is the same with the moon; you cognized [which is more complex than 'look'] a "moon" only when you direct your eyes and cognitive functions in whatever-that-thing in the sky.

In one perspective, we may explain that the moon that is cognized is an illusion, what is real is merely a cluster of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy.

But "clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are still human cognition [not direct], what is more real is must be things beyond quark particles or waves, or energy.
As such clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are relatively illusions.

Whatever is a thing, there is always something beyond it and leading to an infinite regress as postulated by humans.

In the above perspective,
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
Note 'look' in '...' imply it is a more complex process than ordinary looking.

A link related to the above,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35493

How very fascinating. The 3D mask illusion is most apropos. How do we know elephants exist and dragons don't?

Existence is not a predicate.
As such one cannot claim "X exists" by itself without the explicit or implicit predicate.
As such whatever exists & is real must be predicated or conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality[FSR].
As such whatever exists is scientific real is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

At present the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable thus the most realistic and objective on a conditional basis [not absolutely]; the scientific FSK is the standard to evaluate the objectivity of all other FSKs.

As such, when one claims 'elephants exist' we must establish the claim is based on what FSK. If that is claim upon the science-biology-FSK then we can a high confidence level that it is true. see,
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

If someone claim dragons exist, we have to establish what FSK is he relying upon. If it is a Harry Potter FSK, we know it is fiction and dragons don't exists as real in the scientific basis.
If someone insists dragons exist as real, then they have to subject their existence of dragons via the scientific FSK to achieve credibility and reliability for their claims.

Science is a good framework for ontology, broadly speaking metaphysics. Many things that confused pre-scientific cultures no longer bother the average person in the modern world. However, I've not encountered a scientific argument vis-à-vis the moon as relevant to the thread. I don't think the moon exists when we're not looking at it. Why should it?